I have not read the book but its description from the article leads me to think all I have to do is look at the disparaging gap that is increasing at an increasing rate between the wealthy & the rest of us.

Well, if it's about the current economic system, there'll be a lot more rape in it than other books that have topped the Amazon best seller lists, like the Song of Ice and Fire books. Figurative rape, to be sure, but rape nonetheless.

It's books like these that make me love my kindle. I can read a 700 page book without the hassle of lugging around a 700 page book. Of course, I guess everyone doesn't get to see how deep and serious I am reading my huge book on economics.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:It's books like these that make me love my kindle. I can read a 700 page book without the hassle of lugging around a 700 page book. Of course, I guess everyone doesn't get to see how deep and serious I am reading my huge book on economics.

I'm not sure if I'll read it or not, but I do find it delicious that a book about income inequality and the 1% by a left-leaning French academic becoming a surprise best seller in the US public is freaking American conservatives right the fark out.

DrPainMD:From Wikipedia: "The book has been compared to Marx's Das Kapital, improving his analysis by using modern economic data."

That's all I need to know. If you want to learn economics, start with "Economics in One Lesson" and move on to "The Failure of the New Economics," both by Henry Hazlitt.

Considering I have you favorited as "economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743", I'm sure those books are complete trash. I'll give them a look over though, to see where people get crackpot theories.

Haven't read it yet, but wonder if Piketty took into account the biggest demographic upheaval in history. Places like Brazil and India have seen their fertility rates plummet drastically to about 2.5 kids per woman, just above replacement level. The US is already below replacement, and in many industrialized countries like South Korea or Germany, it's just above 1.0 kids per woman. Every time I see a picture of third-worlders in National Geographic or somewhere, they're all holding smartphones--usually of newer vintage than my cellphone--and it's obvious that women in the third world are catching on to the idea that there's more to life than sitting in a hut and popping out babies like a Pez dispenser. Women in the industrialized countries would rather have a career than lie back and think of England.

Truth is, the only real scam that's ever existed is the 1% of the 1% (most 1%ers are doctors, engineers, or other people who actually contribute to society) have always depended on a never-ending supply of peasants to keep the price of labor low. And if there's too many of us, they throw a war or two. In spite of their self-serving objectivist crappola, they really depend on us peasants more than we depend on them, and it takes a lot of us to support the lifestyle of one of them.

Most people are limiting the number of kids they have mostly in their own self-interest. They're prolly just out of college and with a huge loan debt, working some crappy non-paying internship, and simply can't afford kids. Or, perhaps the 'greed is good' mentality has gotten to them and they went Galt on society by deciding that stocking their wine cellar is more important than having a child. If the meme ever gets out that cutting back on kids is the only real way to hit back on the plutocrats, expect long lines outside of Planned Parenthood clinics. And I doubt that the plutocrats will ever take away all our birth control without risking a revolution--and remember that women are about 51% of the voting population in nearly every country. Either way, I think this is going to make for a massive demographic upheaval in the long run, say in a generation or two...

impaler:DrPainMD: From Wikipedia: "The book has been compared to Marx's Das Kapital, improving his analysis by using modern economic data."

That's all I need to know. If you want to learn economics, start with "Economics in One Lesson" and move on to "The Failure of the New Economics," both by Henry Hazlitt.

Considering I have you favorited as "economic moron http://www.fark.com/comments/8128743", I'm sure those books are complete trash. I'll give them a look over though, to see where people get crackpot theories.

TheHighlandHowler:So the top limit on investment yields should be capped at the country's rate of growth?

No, because it's good that people can earn outsize returns for backing good ideas. In particular, risky projects can only get capital because of the possibility of huge returns. And anyways, with the globalization of financial markets and the increasing role of technology in the economy, capital will probably inevitably become more important, and so better paid, relative to labour. Cutting off returns in any one country would just push a lot of money elsewhere.

Income inequality is not such a bad thing in and of itself, provided those on the bottom are taken care of. Higher capital gains taxes and a stronger welfare state are probably the best that can be done. In particular, healthcare and education need to be available to all.

PreMortem:DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.

Shouldn't the real definition of value be what you're willing to pay? If I buy something that I like, and I feel I paid a fair price, I don't give a shiat how much it cost to make. That person found and brought this item to my attention and did everything necessary for me to obtain it. There's value in that. A quarter for a bouncy ball is ok regardless of the fact it was made for a penny because I'll get one cent's worth of entertainment. Bouncy Balls Inc did not rip me off.

CruJones:PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.

Shouldn't the real definition of value be what you're willing to pay? If I buy something that I like, and I feel I paid a fair price, I don't give a shiat how much it cost to make. That person found and brought this item to my attention and did everything necessary for me to obtain it. There's value in that. A quarter for a bouncy ball is ok regardless of the fact it was made for a penny because I'll get one cent's worth of entertainment. Bouncy Balls Inc did not rip me off.

neon_god:TheHighlandHowler: So the top limit on investment yields should be capped at the country's rate of growth?

No, because it's good that people can earn outsize returns for backing good ideas. In particular, risky projects can only get capital because of the possibility of huge returns. And anyways, with the globalization of financial markets and the increasing role of technology in the economy, capital will probably inevitably become more important, and so better paid, relative to labour. Cutting off returns in any one country would just push a lot of money elsewhere.

Income inequality is not such a bad thing in and of itself, provided those on the bottom are taken care of. Higher capital gains taxes and a stronger welfare state are probably the best that can be done. In particular, healthcare and education need to be available to all.

It is a problem in and of itself insofar as it it undermines democracy.

Even if there is an adequate safety net for the poor and working class, concentrating an ever increasing proportion of wealth in the top 1% means concentrating an ever increasing share of political power in that tiny group.

And it's not like there is much social mobility either up and down the latter. Sure you can always point to ordinary people who struck it rich, but these are rare exceptions, and in any case, the increasing concentrations of wealth in the top 1% means that that wealth is becoming increasingly hereditary, not self-made.

We are headed to a society where the levers of power are going to be increasingly wielded by a few super-rich, politically powerful dynastic families. And that undermines democratic and meritocratic ideals.

PreMortem:CruJones: PreMortem: DrPainMD: PreMortem: BalugaJoe: If economists knew what they were talking about then they would have all of the money.

One has nothing to do with the other. You have to be a psychopath who is willing to screw over your grandmother.

Or produce something of great value to others.

To me, making something for a dollar and selling it for ten is screwing someone over. Whether they think they are getting screwed over or not is irrelavent.

Shouldn't the real definition of value be what you're willing to pay? If I buy something that I like, and I feel I paid a fair price, I don't give a shiat how much it cost to make. That person found and brought this item to my attention and did everything necessary for me to obtain it. There's value in that. A quarter for a bouncy ball is ok regardless of the fact it was made for a penny because I'll get one cent's worth of entertainment. Bouncy Balls Inc did not rip me off.

There's a sucker born every minute.

Do you know how much everything you buy cost to make? Do you know how much anything you buy cost to make?

It is no.1 because it's the cold hard truth, backed up with facts, figures, charts, graphs and plenty of research. It's the kind of book that should not only be standard reading in ALL college economics courses (and AP high school as well), but mandatory for every member of congress, every state governor, and every state legislator.

This book rips the lid off the bullsh*t the republicans have been pumping for the last 30 years, and they are scare. All the more reason for everyone to read it.

Again, folks, the biggest news that's not getting reported is the plummeting birth rates around the world. If Piketty's or any other economist's treatise doesn't take this into account, they've left out a very important detail. IIRC, after the Black Plague killed off about 1/3 of Europe, the peasants had their biggest increase in the standard of living since the collapse of the Roman Empire. With birth rates in nearly all industrialized countries plummeting to well-below replacement levels, I think that the standard of living around the world will ultimately rise in the long term...

/and if a robot can replace a worker drone, it can also replace a CEO drone as well

Hardy-r-r:I have not read the book but its description from the article leads me to think all I have to do is look at the disparaging gap that is increasing at an increasing rate between the wealthy & the rest of us.

bull. the biggest gain for the uber wealthy has been the federal reserve, a creation of government. the 0.01% borrow money for nothing, while elderly folk get one percent on their cd's.